A study of the Poor Roll in a Scottish Highland Parish, 1864-1915

This
paper was written for a University project in 1997. If Helmsdale or the Scottish Poor Law is of interest
to you, I hope that you find this article of value. Contact
me for the supporting data and tables.

Abstract:
The original paper from which this webpage was derived, was based on a number of sources.
The annually printed List of the Registered Poor (1868-1915),
Minutes of the Parochial Board (1864-1904),
Statutory Death Records (1855-1901)
and the CEBs (census enumeration books) for Kildonan covering the census years of 1851, 1861, 1871, 1881 and 1891

Information on 336 paupers identified from the above sources have been analysed.
These paupers have been classed as aged, infirm, sick, insane, widow(er)ed with children, orphans and others.
The analysis of the out-relief payments to these people, taking into account the cost of basic foodstuffs in the local area shows that they rose from a level barely enough for survival in 1870 to what might be regarded as basic subsistence level by 1900.
The attitudes shown towards the able-bodied and the use made ny Kildonan parish of the Poorhouse in Bonar Bridge and the Asylum in Inverness are examined.

This project was intended to examine the Poor Law in a rural Highland parish using a
‘questioning sources’ strategy. Using 'Nominal Record linkage' of
the LRP (List of the Registered Poor) and MPB (minutes of the Parochial Board) to the CEBs (Census Enumeration Books) and the Statutary Death records helped to show who the paupers
were, why they were so reduced and how they were treated. The study was intended to examine how the
Poor Law actually operated in comparison with the intention of the 1845 Act
and the criticisms in the 1909 Poor Law Report?

Much of the published work on the Poor Law in Scotland is concerned with the problems created by rapid industrialisation and urbanisation and the
boom/bust cycle of heavy manufacturing, or with the acutely congested western Highlands and Islands. Kildonan is an east-Sutherland parish with
a commercial fishing port, a few large farms and a ‘long tail of tenants with tiny holdings’. (Gray,1957,p226)

According to James Chalmers, charity was “the care and concern for others....a thank offering
for success....to the less fortunate”. Chalmers’ voluntary
ideals, however, recalled a pre-modern society where a small elite of the land-owning class, successful traders and a few professionals in a parish knew who their 'poor' were and to varying extents took care of them.

The growth of urban centres in the nineteenth century increasingly made this a fiction. According to Checkland, nineteenth-century economic theory
held that charity defied the laws of the labour-market in assisting the
able-bodied. (Checkland,1980,p2-3). In practice Alison stated that Victorian welfare was
“parsimony injurious to the poor and discreditable to the rich”.
(Alison,1840,p66).

In Smout's study of nineteenth century Scotland, “The Gaelic
Highlander often refused to conform to the model of Smithian man. They
had their own ideology, which was that the possession of land, the tenure
of a croft, was the highest good a man could desire.” (Smout,1986,p67).
It is impossible to conclude from the evidence how much this applied to
Kildonan. However, the Poor Law was deeply rooted in the Smithian idea of ‘the
invisible hand of economic self-interest’ (of the employing classes!), as opposed to the co-operative, yet individualistic view of the Highlander.

In Richards' study of the Sutherland estate, he referred to James Loch, (MP and agent for the Duke of Sutherland), who in an 1846 letter
on the developing potato famine stated “I do not think that some
measure of distress will not reach our people. I think it will and I think
it ought, it is the only thing that will induce them to work.” (Richards,1973,p263).

From an early Board of Supervision
report “Any systematic attempt to refuse all relief, except such
as may be received within the walls of a Poorhouse, would excite a baneful
spirit of discontent among the poor.....without effecting any saving to
the funds of the parish” (Levitt,1988,p9). Levitt goes on to illustrate
from evidence to the 1844 Commission that it was not unknown for some
parishes to give occasional relief to the unemployed, in spite of the normal practice to refuse relief to the able bodied.

Nicholls (an English exponent
of the Workhouse and efficiency of relief. (Drake,1994,p278) stated that
by 1853, 77% of parishes had moved to (Alisonian) assessment of ratepayers,
rather than the voluntary giving which, prior to the 1843 Disruption and
the 1845 Poor Law Act had been the practice in Scotland. (Nicholls,1967,p264).
Hunter found that by 1850 only two Highland parishes had continued the voluntary principle.
(Hunter,1976,p75)

Quotations from the
Board of Supervision reports: (Nicholls,1967) (The italics are mine)
1849,p229. “As Poorhouses increase they will furnish.....a simple
test where there is reason to doubt the disability or destitution of the
applicants.”
1850,p231. “When relief was a charitable rather than a legal obligation,
Poorhouses were regarded as almshouses....admission was regarded as a
boon.... The more perfect knowledge by the poor of their rights.....have
caused a strong pressure on Parochial Boards. A Poorhouse will be wholly
useless unless it is conducted.....so as to render it more irksome than
labour.”.
1850,p233. “Admission to Poorhouse (1) Destitute persons.....who
cannot be cared for by means of outdoor relief except at a cost exceeding
that for which they can be maintained in the Poorhouse. (2) Persons whose
claims are doubtful,....concealing resources,....idle, immoral or dissipated.”
1851,p235. “Parochial Boards had discretionary powers to afford
temporary relief to casual poor including the able-bodied in absolute
want....it may be more advantageous to give aid to such able-bodied persons
than withhold it until disablement arises”. (Judgements of the House
of Lords in 1852, 1859 and 1866 effectively removed this discretion from
Parochial Boards (Levitt,1988,p11)).

The Act required
Parochial Boards to care for the sick and infirm, but also insisted on
rigid control of costs and harsh tests of genuine destitution. The result was
an unsatisfactory compromise. (MacLachlan,1987,p26)

During the period of this
study, concurrent with parliamentary reform and the enfranchisement of
the working-classes, legislation was introduced dealing with education,
lunacy, public health, old-age pensions in 1908 and unemployment insurance
in 1911. In 1909 a report was published which was highly critical of Poor
Law practice. It concluded: the abolition of outdoor relief was wholly
impracticable; offering the Poorhouse in all cases had unacceptable
results; doles were manifestly inadequate for healthy subsistence and
assumed to supplement ‘other’ resources, whether or not they
existed; relief was unconditional with no check on actual maintenance
or improvement. (NCBPLC,1909,p77-81)

The authors of the Main report
aimed to modify and improve the Poor Law, whereas the Minority report
for Scotland (MRNCBPLC,1909,p44) proposed its replacement by specialist
agencies whose aim should be the prevention rather than relief of destitution.
Subject headings relevant to this project are summarised:

Able-bodied.(p2-13).
Treatment was inadequate and inept. National problems could not be solved
at the parochial level. There should be a national Employment and Training
Authority.
Children.(p13-19). Poorhouses were the wrong place for children. 30,000
children on outdoor relief were underfed and poorly clothed. The Education
Authority should be responsible for orphans and children of the Poor.
Sick.(p20-28). The provisions for medical care were not working. The system
provided the minimum necessary rather than the maximum practicable. The
service was uneconomical, impracticable and wasteful. The sick should
be wholly taken out of the Poor Law.
Mentally Defective.(p28-31). 20% of Paupers were mentally defective. All
defectives should be removed from the Poor Law into the care of the Lunacy
Authority.
Aged.(p31-34). The 1908 Old Age Pensions Act gave pensions to the necessitous
over-70s. Excluded Pensioners and some under-70s unable to earn their
maintenance should be removed from the Poor Law to the Pensions Committee.
Infirm but not Aged.(p31-36). Discrimination between the aged and younger
infirm was unfair. Poor Law treatment was inadequate out-relief or the
Poorhouse. They should be treated according to their needs outwith the
Poor Law.

The underlying philosophy
of the Poor Law, which implied the inferiority of the poor was criticised
(MRNCBPLC,1909,p55):
There was an implication that moral defects caused destitution.
The stigma of pauperism was designed to be a deterrent to requesting relief.
Stress was placed on the efficiency of treatment (cost to the ratepayer)
rather than long-term improvement in the condition of the pauper.
All classes of paupers were viewed equally as destitution cases and were
not eligible for relief before they became destitute.

Description and evaluation of Sources and methods:
The annual “List of Registered Poor chargeable to the Parish of
Kildonan”. (LRP) These cover 1868-1915 with ten years missing.
The Minutes of the Poor Board, (MPBs) were used to go back to 1864 and fill in some of the missing years. All individuals with
a Kildonan settlement were linked on a spreadsheet into 336 cases, showing
duration and nature-of-relief. Despite some inconsistencies, the absence
of the GRP and the restarting (twice) of the roll-numbers, there was little
risk of confusion. The LRPs were circulated to ratepayers, often the neighbours
of paupers on the roll and included the annual statement of income and
expenditure summarised at Appendix-3.

The Minutes of the
Parochial Board for Kildonan. (MPB)
The “General Register of the Poor” for Kildonan in Highland
Archives only covers 1924-30 but some of the Minute books of the Parochial
Board survive. Fair copies cover 1863-Oct/1878 and Aug/1890-1904. A draft
covers 1877-Oct 1884, thus 1885 to part of 1890 is missing. Draft rolls
in November and May are included with new applications for relief or changes
(increased doles, shoes and blankets or house repairs). The MPBs refer
to communications received or actions by the Inspector, only occasionally
giving extra detail about paupers. An annual rate was levied on the owners
and occupiers of property. The parish was owned almost entirely by the Duke of Sutherland
and his factor was a member of the Board until the Parish Council took
over in May 1895. James Campbell, the Inspector of the Poor, as well as being the Parochial
Clerk, the Collector of rates, Parish Schoolmaster, Sanitary Inspector and Registrar was
appointed in 1866 after his predecessor had resigned following criticism
by the Board of Supervision’s visiting Inspector. Following an 1869
inspection Campbell was commended for the new printed return which forms
the basis of this project. Retiring in 1914, he probably did ‘know
everybody’s business’. (Fraser&Morris,1990,p272).

Statutory death records.
(SDR)
As far as possible the death of a pauper in the LRP was linked to the
SDR, adding age and cause of death to summary spreadsheets. For many pauper
deaths the Inspector was Informant as well as Registrar and the personal
information is often incomplete and cause of death uninformative. There was a good reason for the lack of personal information and in particular next of kin (the bane of today's family history buffs). If the Inspector of Poor was aware of relatives of a pauper, he was obliged by law to chase them for support of the pauper. On occasion, this might cost considerably more than the actual poor relief given. The cause of death could also be uninformative as calling on the services of a doctor would cost the Poor Board and therefore it was often easier to enter 'senile decay', 'debility' or similar as the cause of death.

CEBs for Kildonan
(52) 1851 to 1891.
Using extracts of the spreadsheets in alphabetical order with the people
whom I expect to find in each of the CEBs (1851-91) for annotation, I
identified all but eleven local paupers in one or more CEBs for their
reported ages, places of birth and occupations (before they become ‘paupers’).
The CEBs are a frustrating source due to temporary absences, reporting
errors and the lack of any useful addresses in this parish. However, due
to their circumstances and need to maintain a ‘settlement’
potential paupers tended not to move. In the 1851 CEB 62% of the population
were locally born and 81% in Sutherland. Among paupers over the period
80% were born in the parish and 89% in the county. Having
found discrepancies between ages on the LRP and SDR, there are more between
these and the ages reported for the same individuals on successive CEBs.
Only 58 had informative occupations, other than e.g. ‘domestic-servant’,
‘lotter’, ‘wife’, ‘daughter’ or blank.

Maintenance of a 'settlement' was important, as the Poor Board were only responsible for paupers either born or long-term resident in their parishes. Anyone without such a settlement status was the responsibility of their home parish. Once again, the Poor Board would on occasion spend more on seeking to return a pauper to their home parish, or in seeking restitution from that parish, than they might spend on actual relief.

Old Parish Record for Kildonan, 1791-1854. (OPR)
The OPR was checked for paupers born in the parish up to 1843 according
to the CEBs. Most were found, though it appears few people knew their
exact age and therefore some of the commoner names are open to dispute.
Almost all paupers had parents described as lotters, tenants or labourers,
which accounted for the bulk of the pre-clearance population. However
this source would have been more valuable if I had time to examine kinship
links in order to understand relationships between paupers and their neighbours
in the community.

Main Findings.Eligibility.
Many claimants were refused on the grounds that they were able-bodied,
not destitute or “not a proper object of relief”. Some are
'relieved' but the inspector is instructed to recover advances from relatives.
Although amounts recovered are regularly reported, it is rarely possible
to link this to individual relief given. (See Drake,1994,p96-97 for the
responsibility under English law of children for their parents). The Board
became involved in legal disputes over settlement of paupers and, in 1875,
£89 (20% of the total paid to the regular poor) was spent on a single case
claiming restitution from a reputed father. For ‘settlement’,
birth or three years residence was necessary, without receiving relief
or begging for assistance. (Day,1918,p127). Several claims by tramps are
rejected annually, though the financial returns do show occasional payments to 'casual
poor'. Kildonan paupers in other parishes (2 to 4 each year) are included but paupers
from elsewhere (5 or 6 every year.) are ignored in this project. The percentage of
the population on-the-roll rose a little above the Scottish average in
1870 and in most years until 1897. (Appendix-2).

Imbeciles and Lunatics.(sic)
There are 51 cases described as either imbeciles or lunatics, This represents 15% of the total which was less than the national average of 20%. Six
of the 51 were sent to the Inverness Asylum for short periods before the Board of
Lunacy payments began in 1876 and 36 thereafter, mostly after 1893 when
the payments from the Board of Lunacy increased. Lodging-house keepers were authorised
and paid by the Board to keep lunatics. Ten imbeciles were boarded-out
in earlier years and sent to the Asylum later, one due to their propensity for ‘chasing
conveyances on the highway’. Several widows-with-children spent
time in the Asylum. It is impossible to classify the rest, perhaps today we might describe tham as depressed
due to their impoverished circumstances.

Sick.
I defined “long-term-sick” as the 38 people (11% of the total) who were on-the-roll
before the age of 60, and remained there for more than two years. I defined “final-illness”
as the 12 (4% of the total) younger cases who died within a year of joining the roll. Incapable
paupers were nursed by untrained women who probably stayed off the roll
themselves only by virtue of 1/- pw attendance paid for each. A Medical
Officer shared with teh adjoining Loth parish was partly paid by government grant, (Day,1918,p128)
though the Chairman of the Board complained repeatedly about the cost
of the MO’s house. SDRs for paupers often indicate ‘old-age’
or ‘debility’ as a cause of death, making analysis pointless.
Tuberculosis and phthisis were commonly reported as causes of premature
death, probably due to damp, inadequate housing (Hunter,1976,p112-3).
Medicines were provided to sick paupers but the Board was reluctant to
send paupers to Inverness Infirmary. Typhoid, typhus and other fevers
were regularly reported but serious expenditure on sanitation only begins
after the Public Health Act of 1897.

Aged.
I defined the elderly at 65+, although the 1908 Act referred to over-70s.
The elderly accounted for much of the roll, 45% overall based on age-of-entry and
higher based on actual ages, until 1908. The median age-of-entry to regular
out-relief overall was 63, rising to 68 when I excluded widows-with-children
and orphans. The median age of the 156 who were or had been on-the-roll
and died aged 65+ (1864-1901) was 80. The median age of death of all 366
65+s in the parish (1855-1901) was 77. The oldest are most likely to need
aid, but this does not explain such longevity having survived for nine years of a pound of oatmeal per day!
In 1871, 68% of females and 27% of males who I calculated to
be 65+ were on-the-roll and in 1891, 53% of females and 10% of males.
It is reasonable to assume that although some of those not on-the-roll
may have had savings or remittances to live on, most lived with younger
relatives. The migration from the parish of younger people as the population declined
by 25% between 1851 and 1901 inevitably reduced the available support for the elderly.

Widows and Orphans.
During 1864-1908, 35 widows-with-children (11%) receive out-relief. For
21 of these residing in the parish and 8 residing elsewhere, but with a settlement in the parish, relief ceased, presumably when the children
reached 14; There were only four widowers-with-children, two of these died leaving 6 orphans. There were
32 Married men (10 of them elderly, and 5 living outside the parish) of whom 20 died on-the-roll.
Twelve orphans or illegitimate children (4%), two of them imbeciles,
were maintained, normally boarded-out in the community with one of them brought
up in the Bonar Bridge Poorhouse from birth till 14.

Able-bodied claimants.
It is difficult to determine whether the able-bodied were assisted. 11%
of cases are uncertain, some from outwith the parish, while others
received short-term or one-off payments for unstated reasons. Apart from
subsistence crofting agriculture, Kildonan depended on cyclical industries. Inland sheep-farming and coastal arable-farming in eastern Sutherland
were hit hard by agricultural depression after 1875 (Devine,1984,p243); the
herring fishery could turn unpredictably from glut to famine. This would not only affect the fishermen, but the fish-processors and coopers at the harbour as well. Kildonan
residents who migrated for work might return to the parish during periods
of unemployment. Seven shoemakers and tailors appeared on-the-roll in the years after
the railway reached Helmsdale in 1870. The ability of traders to bring in cheaper factory produced shoes and clothing by rail clearly ruined the trade of local craftsmen. A cooper was described in a CEB
as unemployed prior to joining the roll. According to Nicholls, the law did allow occasional charity to the able-bodied but only the infirm were entitled to regular relief. (Nicholls,1967,p112).
The law was constantly broken when an able-bodied claimant had a sick
dependent or a sympathetic MO could register the unemployed person as
‘disabled’. (Day,1918,p127). One can speculate that if an
unemployed person became truly disabled by reason of their destitution
and, therefore, a “proper object of relief”, they would probably
remain unemployable. Truly an inept system, as described in MRNCBPLC.

Weekly Doles.
Some payments for rents or repairs were made and clothing, bedding and
fuel given out, but there is insufficient data to evaluate them. I concentrated
on an analysis of 2372 pauper-years of weekly outdoor-relief.
Between 26 and 64 were on regular outdoor-relief (1864-1910) averaging
49 and 9 years/pauper. Doles ranged from 6d to 5/-, averaging 2/6 with
a median 2/3 overall. Some families are included so median values are
more significant than the average. Over decennial periods the doles rose
steadily from 1/3 (1864-70), 1/6 (1871-80), 2/- (1881-90) and 2/9 (1891-1900).

The mid-1880s saw the rise of the Highland Land League. (Hunter,1976,p131-183).
The Kildonan branch of the Sutherland Association, a precursor of the
League, was active from 1878 (MacLeod,1917,p29) and forced the estate
to concede on several local issues. (MacCall,1995). Crofter representatives
(including the son of a pauper who died in 1885) were on the Board in
1890, (MPBs for 1885-1889 are missing) following the Third Reform Act(1885),
but the doles were rising before 1885, so could the Board have been responding
to local political pressure?

The rise is even more significant in the context of a prices index falling
from its peak of 151 in 1877 to 92 in 1896 and 100 in 1900. (Bowley,1900).
Adjusting to 1900 prices the median dole was 1/- in 1864, only reaching
1/3 in 1878, 2/- in 1887 and 3/- by 1897. At 1870 prices a diet of oatmeal,
potatoes and fish providing just 1900 calories per day would cost 2/-
pw and the actual median 1/3 buys just 7lb of oatmeal/week, (some doles
were paid in meal). In 1900, 3/- pw would buy a more balanced 2800 calories/day.
For comparison, it was calculated that on
a Sutherland labourer’s wage, spending 3/- on food per head (plus
sundries and rent) a couple would be in primary poverty with one child
in 1868-1884 and throughout with two. (Rowntree,1902 and Bowley,1900).
Sheer survival was very difficult
for paupers. If destitute, as demanded by the Poor Law, how could they
have ‘other resources’? Perhaps they received their customary
codach (portion) from among the crofters and labourers. Waste fish from
the harbour, nettles from the midden and shellfish from the shore may
have provided extra when they were mobile enough to get them. Doles paid
to long-term paupers sometimes rose in their final years.

Poorhouse.
The Sutherland Combination Poorhouse was too large, distant, expensive,
unsuited to the Highlands and little-used. It cost 8/4 per pauper/week
in 1879. (Day,1918,p111). The Scottish average per pauper/week in 1863 was 4/4. (Ferguson,1948,p218).
The Poorhouse ‘Test’ was recommended for all but the most
‘deserving’, yet in Scotland generally only 14% were sent
to the Poorhouse, probably because outdoor-relief was cheaper, compared
with 31% in England. (Fraser&Morris,1990,p275).

The English New Poor
Law, designed for the rural South aimed to put as many paupers as possible
in the workhouse. (Drake,1994, p277-278). In Kildonan, between 1868 and 1895, only 7 (2%) were sent,
including a child for 14 years, yet the Poorhouse charged the parish £1176
in that time. A further five were sent in 1905-1915. Fourteen
who were on outdoor-relief between 1867 and 1869 were ‘offered Poorhouse’,
after pressure from the Board of Supervision, though only one was sent
and seven continued on regular relief subsequently. Three more were ‘tested’
in 1901, two came off-the-roll but one continued. Several people refused
even the offer of outdoor-relief demonstrating the ‘stigma’
effect and other deserving cases may well not have applied.

The ‘Barracks’ were a terrace of six pauper-houses in Helmsdale. They appear in an estate plan of 1820, established by the Sutherland estate as part of the infamous Clearance of Kildonan and taken over by the Parochial Board from 1845.
During 1872-1905, the parochial board spent a total of £210 in repairs and housed 14 individuals
or families receiving regular relief totalling roughly £1060, or
£8 per pauper-year instead of an estimated £49 per pauper-year for the Poorhouse.
Alongside the almshouses, known locally as 'The Barracks', the plan shows the narrow strips of land allocated to tenants who had been cleared from inland Kildonan. These allocations or 'lots' were judged just sufficient to keep a family alive. The census refers to the tenants as 'lotters' rather than 'crofters' as defined in the crofting legislation of the 1890s.

Other cottages were also taken over by the Board in exchange for relief and used as ‘Parochial
lodging-houses’. (Day,1918,p116).

From workhouses.org.uk - After 1845, poor relief continued to be administered at the parish level. As well as operating out-relief, parishes or combinations of parishes with a population of at least 5000, could operate a 'statutory' poorhouse under rules prescribed by the central Board of Supervision. Many parishes, particularly in the east of Scotland operated smaller and more informal poorhouse establishments variously known as almshouses, parish homes, parochial houses or parish lodging houses. In 1861, the Board of Supervision identified two classes of parish poorhouses: those being used for the purposes of statutory poorhouses, and those that were merely dwelling houses for those receiving outdoor relief, most of which were very modest. Parish accommodation was usually arranged as small apartments or cottages. The inmates (persons of good character) could live with as much freedom as in their own homes, often with their own furniture and buying and preparing their own food.
The workhouses.org.uk page specific to Sutherland is here. It notes that one of the earliest poor-relief institutions in Sutherland was that in the parish of Kildonan, said to have been established in the 1820s. It consisted of a terrace of six pauper cottages or almshouses known as "The Barracks". It received funding from the Duke of Sutherland and after 1845 from the Kildonan Parochial Board. In 1904 it could house up to 8 men, 8 women and 14 children.

Perhaps the Kildonan parish almshouse had to be established early due to the impoverishment of many of the cleared tenants due to the estate 'Improvements'! It may be also be noted that while the Sutherland estate was the main if not the only proprietor of the parish, the poor-relief rate after 1845 would be levied on tenants as well as the estate.

Conclusions:
The concern of the Board was ‘efficiency’ of relief to the
deserving-poor and forcing the non-deserving-poor to labour. Doles rose
from utterly inadequate to bare subsistence-level by 1900. The aged, insane
and infirm were aided to the minimum level needed for survival, though
this does not appear to have affected their life-expectancy. The able-bodied
may have been assisted by subterfuge. The Poorhouse was expensive and
unsuitable. Relatively large sums were spent on legal costs and administration.
Though the MRNCBPLC criticisms were justified, it does not appear to have
been as bad in Kildonan as in the urban areas. Economic dogma and parochial
parsimony in the face of a rapidly changing economy bore hardest on the
poorest.

Personal Note
My great-grandfather, Joseph MacLeod, MBE, author of
"Highland Heroes of the Land Reform Movement"
and "The Land Question - the root of all social evils"
was a founder of the Sutherland Association
and a prominent Land-League speaker. He was the son of Alexander MacLeod, a shoemaker in Helmsdale who
received both occasional and regular out-relief
at various times after 1870, when the railway reached Helmsdale, until the last of his six children reached
14. Unusually Alexander came off the roll aged 65. The family lived at
the Barracks where his mother nursed incapable paupers. Despite their
circumstances, Alexander lived until he was 87 and Ann, his wife, to 97.

A Contemporary criticism of the Poor Law
The above analysis was created by me as part of a University course. The subject happened to be of great personal interest, as it had affected my gt-gt-grandparents. However, the constraints of the course meant that I was limited in its word-count. Hence the staccato nature of the above. As I am no longer subject to such constraints, I had intended to expand on it, but have not got around to it. However, I have recently (in 2019) re-read Donald MacLeod's "Gloomy Memories" and was struck by his complaints in a letter of 1851 about the operation of the Scottish Poor Law, as it was enacted in 1845. I have therefore included his criticisms in full - pages 113 to 119 of the 1892 Canadian edition, following this paragraph.

Donald MacLeod wrote:
This leads me again to the operations of the new and disgraceful Poor
Law of Scotland, which is without precedent on the Statute book of any
Christian civilized nation on earth. Indeed, when pondering over its
details, crooks, chicanery and deception, I am tempted to question whether
epidemic blindness and hardness of heart have not seized hold of the ruling
and influential classes of society ; and it seems as if Providence had
determined to destroy the baneful system on which the population of the
Highlands has so long grown poor and wretched, by destroying the potato
crop; in order to arouse the nation from their culpable apathy, regarding
the Highland portion of His vineyard, where He was more beloved, more
feared, and His statutes more strictly obeyed than any other portion of
His creation, by giving this sharp warning of their danger, in tolerating a
system pregnant with disastrous results, and cutting deep at the root of
national ruin ; you may easily perceive, if all Scotch and English
proprietors would follow the example of the Highland and Irish Nimrods, what
the result would be. Their rights of property conveys the same power to
every one of them, to do with their properties what they please, as they
do to Highland lairds. In this age of utility we should expect to find
the forest ground of Scotland rapidly decreasing, but the reverse is the
case. The Highlands is an outer kingdom that moves under different
laws of progress from any other portion of Britian. Here the Nimrods of
England made a desperate rally. As they have seen their privileges sailing [page 114}
off one after another by the blows of public opinion, and their parks and game
preserves invaded and ruined by the rise of towns, factories, railways, and
other democratic nuisances, the sons of the mighty aristocratic ancestors
have cast their eyes to the far North, and by universal reign in that
quarter, resolved to make up for all they have lost. Highland proprietors
considered that a deer forest was both a necessary and profitable appendage
of an estate. If it wanted that it wanted dignity. Hence (according to
Mr. Robert Somers, editor of the North British Mail, Glasgow,
a gentleman to whom the Highlanders are much indebted) "Deer forests were
introduced in much the same spirit as powdered wigs and four-wheeled
carriages at the beginning and end of the last century." Now, it is a
notorious fact that Highland glens and mountain ranges laid out in forests,
is more profitable to a proprietor than when let as a sheep walk, (not
speaking of agricultural purposes at all). Not so to the tacksman or to
the country, but if it yields more rent to the owner, that one fact is
sufficient to decide the disposal of it. The huntsman who wants a deer
forest, limits his offers by no other calculation than the extent of his purse.
He expects no pecuniary return ; his object is simply to spend his money
and to have sport, and if means will allow, and man be capacitated capacious
enough, he will out-bid every opponent. But had the Legislature taken,
care as they should, and have made the rapidly increased rents of the
proprietors reponsible for the employment and maintenance of the people, which
the system of sheep walks, deer forests and game preserves, deprived of
their usual means of livelihood, the Highlanders might not have had
occasion to regret the change so much; or if the Legislature did not see fit to
retain and secure their clansmen in those rights of tenure which they and
their ancestors had possessed for time immemorial, in the same way as the
English copyholders were secured in the reign of Charles II, it ought to
have vigorously enforced the Poor Law of James VI and supplemented it
with a leaf or two from the 43rd of Queen Elizabeth, the true tenor of which,
was to provide sufficient food, clothing and lodgings, to those among the
lieges who are proveably destitute, and who cannot obtain support without
public aid. When this law was enforced (in Scotland as I said before) in
1845, the Poor Law Amendment Act was enacted, and the administration
of this law entrusted or committed to two sets of men, rather say two
Boards, viz., the Board of Supervision and Parochial Board. The Board
of Supervision consisted of two able men, (no mistake,) Sir John MacNeil
and Mr. Smyth were the responsible parties. The Parochial Boards were
composed principally of proprietors, factors, and sheep farmers, established-
by-law ministers, doctors, parish schoolmasters, rich merchants,
(if favourites of the powers that be) with a very thin mixture from any other
denomination, who hold monthly or quarterly meetings, as they think proper,
to deliberate and consider who is deserving relief and who is not. (God
help the poor for the tender mercies of the wicked are at the best cruel.)
When a poor person puts in a claim, the officer of the Board waits upon
him to examine his case, and his report is submitted for judgment at the
next meeting of the Board; in most cases the relief is refused, or if granted
is so small that it is inadequate to sustain life; in most cases from nine
[page 115}
pence to sixpence per week, and often below that sum, especially if there
are more than one pauper in the same house. The only course open for
the poor supplicant is to demand a schedule to make their cases known to
the Board of Supervision, rather say Sir John MacNeil. These schedules
are a printed form with a great amount of interogatories and large blanks
left for answers, something like this â

What is your name ?
What is your age"?
Where were you born ?
Have you any children ?

About forty questions are asked which must be all answered in writing.
The other side of this large sheet is left blank for the Inspector of the
Poor to make his answers to the complaint. Yes, (but behold where the
secret of iniquity and injustice are concealed which brand the concocters,
supporters and enactors of this new Poor Law of Scotland with infamy,
and should consign the Law itself to everlasting destruction) when the
poor pauper gets his or her side of the schedule made up with answers,
then it is handed over to the Inspector, who, in general, is the Factor,
Parish Schoolmaster or the Doctor of the District, (who of course must
be a creature of the Proprietors and Factors) to make up his side of the
schedule, he is at liberty to state the truth or the greatest falsehood
imaginable, (one thing evident he must please the Factor or he will not occupy
his situation long) he seals up the schedule in a Parochial Poor Board
envelope, under the Board's stamp, and hands it to the supplicant to pay
it and post it to the Board of Supervision. This is all the liberty and
recourse for obtaining justice the British-enacted Poor Law of Scotland
left for their paupers, should the supplicant be as poor, moral, upright and
honest as Job. The Inspector may represent him or her immoral,
intemperate, lazy or thievish, having plenty to eat and drink; for the law enacts
that no other evidence can be taken or produced to prove the supplicant's
claim ; and should the Board of Supervision think proper to reverse the
decision of the Parochial Board, what can they do ? they can only (by
enacted law) recommend the claimant to get relief; they dare not state
what amount he is entitled to get; all they can do if the Parochial Board
continues obstinate and allow nothing, they can give the claimant a
certificate to employ a Solicitor to bring his case before the Supreme Court
at Edinburgh, but this is seldom done. I was six years in Edinburgh
during the operation of this law, and only one poor case was permitted to
pass the Bar of the Board of Supervision all that time. That case was
successful in the Court of Session, but carried to the House of Lords, and
how it was decided there I have not heard. The fact is that these Boards,
the Law, and Highland Proprietors are going hand in hand to demoralize,
pauperize and extirpate the race. You have a pointed illustration of
this in the following brief account of their co-operation for the
consummation of their designs. In the year 1850, Ministers of the Free Church
and other dissenting bodies in the Isle of Skye and other districts in the
Highlands, forwarded many grievous complaints in behalf of the poor to the
Board of Supervision, showing the culpable carelessness and malversation
[page 116}
and partiality of the Parochial Board, detailing many extreme cases of
poverty and actual death by famine. The public press took up the case,
and so urgent were the public requests, that Government ordered Sir John
MacNeil and Mr. Smyth to repair to the scene of poverty and fields of
famine and death, to make enquiry into the truth of these alarming reports.
In a few days they landed among the valleys of famine, death and
complaints. These Commissioners of justice and humanity summoned the
Parochial Board and the reverend reporters of distress, before them, and
enquired where extreme cases of poverty were to be found; being told,
they then enjoined upon the parties to accompany them early next
morning, at daylight, to examine these cases. So at daylight they started, and
they were in the first instance directed to a poor widow's abode. Is this
one of the worst cases you have to show? enquired Sir John; being
answered in the affirmative, then says he, Mr. Smyth we must see what is
within ; in they go, the widow with her three fatherless children were in
bed. Holo, cries Sir John, have you any food in the house ? Very little
indeed sir, was the reply. Sir John, by this time was searching and
opening boxes, where nothing but rags and emptiness was to be found; at
last he uncovered a pot where there was about three pounds of cold pottage ;
Smyth discovered a small bowl or basin of milk. Sir John bawls
out with an authoritative tone, holding out the cold pottage in one hand and
the basin of milk in the other, "Do you presume, gentlemen, to call this
an extreme case of poverty, where so much meat was left after being
satisfied at supper'?" Some of the party ventured to mutter out, "that is
all the poor woman has." "Hush" says Sir John, "she was cunning
enough to hide the rest." Sir John's dog made a bolt at the pottage and
devoured the most of it ; the party left ; did not go far when the dog got
sick. "That d__n cold pottage has poisoned my valuable dog," says
Sir John ; the servant was ordered back to the inn to physic the dog.
The whole investigation of the day was conducted in a similar manner ;
only the dog was taken care of, and not allowed among the pots of the
perishing people. Next day Sir John summoned the Parochial Board to
appear before him, to get instructions for their future proceedings. The
Board attended, and Sir John addressed them nearly as follows : â

Gentlemen of the Board â The Government who sent me out, will
not compel you to give out more relief than you are giving, until extreme
cases of famine are made out. Extreme cases means death by famine;
such cases makes you culpable and responsible to the law of the land.
Gentlemen, (understand me) who are almost to a man, Ministers of the
Gospel, Missionaries, Priests, Sheepfarmers, Factors, Game Keepers,
Foresters, Doctors, and Proprietors, to whom the Government look for
truth ; whose prerogative, by a special Act of Parliament, is to report the
cause of death in the Isle of Skye during these clamorous times (understand
me), be very careful about making out your reports ; how can you prove
the death of any one to be caused by want of food without having first a
post mortem examination of the body by more than one medical man.
There are many other distempers and diseases that may linger about
people, that may cut away life very quick when a person is in a weak state
[page 117}
for want of nourishment, which cannot be attributed to famine. So, be
aware of what you are about, for I assure you if you continue to report
extreme cases and death by famine, you shall (gentlemen) find yourselves
in a sad dilemma when you have to defend yourselves at the bar of a
Justiciary Court for culpable homicide.

These instructions and definition of the Scotch new Poor Law Bill
enactment were forwarded to every Parochial Board in Scotland, and had
the desired effect. We never heard, nor never will hear of an extreme
case of death by famine in the Highlands of Scotland. It could not be
expected that such valuable men as constitutes the Parochial Boards in
Scotland, would criminate themselves for the sake of making up a faithful
report of the cause of deaths among the unfortunate despised Highlanders.
Yet vengeance for all these evils doings, says God, is mine ;
I am forbearing but not an all-forbearing God.

" Hence then, and evil go with thee, along
Thy offspring the place of evilâhell
Thou and thy wicked crew; there mingle broils
Ere this avenging sword begin thy doom,
Or some more sudden vengeance wing'd from God
Precipitate thee with augmented pains. â Paradise Lost,

May we not exclaim in the language of immortal Burns, " Man's
inhumanity to man . . ." â and borrow a short paragraph from Shylock,
but to change the names, which is quite applicable to the Highland Board,
proprietors and their accomplices: '*Are we not Highlanders? have
Highlanders no eyes; have Highlanders no hands, organs, dimensions, senses,
affections, passions, and appetites, that should be fed with the same food
with you ; are Highlanders not hurt with the same weapon, and healed by
the same means as you are, warmed and cooled by the same summer and
winter as you are? If you prick us, do we not bleed and feel it? If you
tickle us, do we not laugh ? If you poison and starve us, do we not die ?
If you persecute us and wrong us, shall we not l>e revenged ? If we are like
you in the rest, we will resemble you in that. The villany you have
taught us we will execute, and it will go hard with us, or we will better
the instructions vhen our turn of revenge will come."

To detail the
preconcerted destructive schemes manifested in every chapter of this bill,
(which, indtred, we may say, was conceived in sin and brought forth in
iniquity ;) the malversation of its administration, the fatal effects of its
operations, would require more room than I can spare : you will have to
be content with the foregoing specimen ; and I think it should convince
you of the length that the machinations of evil doers in high places may
go, to rob and punish their fellow creatures, and to make the creduloua
world believe that all they do is for the good of their victims. Look at *
Board of Supervision sitting in secret at Edinburgh, a distance
of about 400 miles from some of the most impoverished districts in
Scotland, hearing the complaints of the poor only upon schedules, refusing
them a right of reply to the allegations of hostile inspection, and giving no
reasons for its decisions, though involving questions of life or death to
the poor. The sheriffs of counties were even debarred from giving them
[page 118}
justice when deprived of adequate relief. All these precautions were
taken lest the poor might have power to impose upon the parochial boards.
A grosser misapprehension of the relative position and strength of the two
parties could not possibly be acted upon. A Highland pauper is one of
the most helpless of mortals: a Highland Poor Board, so far as its
jurisdiction extends, is all-powerful, embracing in its ranks thÂ» whole wealth
and influence of a parish. If the legislature had had any sincere intention
of giving the poor a chance of justice against the prejudices of the boards,
it would have thought of strengthening instead of weakening their
position, but the blunder or the crime, whichever it may be, of 1845, ought
now to be atoned for. Let the sheriffs be empowered to review the
decisions of the parochial board in respect to the amount of relief; let the
old right of appeal, free of let or hindrance, to the Court of Session be
restored ; let the Board of Supervision itself be made amenable in all its
acts to that supreme tribunal to which all classes and bodies of Scotchmen
are accustomed to bow in respectful deference ; and, in short, let every
possible facility be given to the poor of stating their complaints in the
courts of justice of having their claims impartially investigated, and of
obtaining decisions in accordance with the law, and not with the narrow and
illiberal views of bodies which have a palpable interest in depriving the
poor of an adequate maintenance. As for the objection that the expense
of maintaining the poor would soon consume the entire rental of the
Highlands, it has no foundation in fact. The total amount expended on
the poor in the four counties of Sutherland, Ross, Inverness, and Argyle,
though embracing six months of the severe and universal distress
occasioned by the failure of the potato crop, was only Â£37,618 l1s. 7d.,
being scarcely 6 per cent, of the valued rent. This sum may be
considerably increased, without exceeding the rate of assessment in many
parts of the country in ordinary years. But even supposing that the
expenditure on the poor should rise to a height extremely inconvenient to
the proprietors, I do not perceive that this would be disastrous. The
proprietors have the means of correcting this evil in their own hands.
There is no country on earth where the duty of children to support their
aged and disabled parents, and the ties of kindred generally, are more
profoundly respected than in the Highlands. As long as a Highlandman
has a bite and a sup he shares it with an aged father or mother. It is
only when reduced to poverty himself that he allows any of his near
kindred to claim the benefit of the poor's roll. The policy of the Highland
lairds for many years has been to deprive the able-bodied of their holdings
of land, to reduce them to the verge of destitution, and compel them, if
possible to emigrate. The direct tendency of these measures has been
to increase the number of the aged and infirm dependent upon parochial
relief. The proprietors have only to reverse their policy, to keep the
able-bodied at home, to lay open the soil to their industry, and to pro-
mote their industry, their comfort and independence, in order to reduce
the burden of the aged and disabled poor. This is the safety-valve of
a liberal and effectual Poor Law. While it would protect the poor from
starvation and suffering, it would constrain the owners of property, by the
[page 119}
bonds of self-interest, to consult the happiness of the people, to strive for
their employment, and to introduce that new division and management of
the soil which lie at the foundation of permanent improvement. The
same considerations which induced the proprietors would dispose the sheep-
farmers to submit to the new order of things. Farewell to the Poor Law
at present.

Conclusion of the extract from Gloomy Memories
Thus a contemporary view of the Poor Law. Despite his criticism, it appears that ammelioration and reduced harshness in the operation of the Poor Law had to wait until towards the end of the century - perhaps co-incidentally following the extension of the franchise and the ending of Parliamentary dominance by the land-owning classes.

Official Reports:
The report of the National Committee to promote the break-up of the Poor
Law Commission, 1909 - (NCBPLC)
The Minority Report of the Poor Law Commission for Scotland, in the above
report of the National Committee to promote the break-up of the Poor Law
Commission, 1909, (MRNCBPLC)
Report by the Board of Trade into Earnings and Hours of Labour of Work
People in the UK, Vol V - Agriculture in 1907, HMSO, 1910
Report of an enquiry by the Board of Trade into Working Class rents and
retail prices in industrial towns in 1912, HMSO, 1913

DA301 Final Project
Report,
MacCall, A.T., Marrel East Sutherland during the Highland Land War of
the 1880s, Project report submitted for Open University Course DA301 (Studying
Family and Community History), 1995

Published Secondary
Sources:
Alison, W.P., 1840, On the management of the poor in Scotland, Blackwood
Bowley, A.L.,1900, Wages in the UK in the Nineteenth Century, Cambridge
Checkland, O, 1980, Philanthropy in Victorian Scotland, John Donald, Edinburgh
Crowther, A.M. Poverty, ‘Health & Welfare’ in Fraser &
Morris, People & Society in Scotland, qv
Day, J.P., 1918, Public Administration in the Highlands & Islands,
London
Devine, T.M.,(Ed), 1984, Farm Servants and Labour in Lowland Scotland,
1770-1914, John Donald
Drake, M. (Ed), 1994, Time Family and Community, Open University
Drake & Finnegan, (Ed), 1997, Sources and Methods, (Vol 4), Open University
Finnegan & Drake, (Ed), 1994, From Family Tree to Family History,
(Vol 1), Open University
Flinn M.W, & Smout, TC.,1977, Scottish Population History from the
C17 to the 1930s, Cambridge
Ferguson, T, 1948, The Dawn of Scottish Social Welfare, Nelson, Edinburgh
Fraser & Morris, (Eds), 1990, People and Society in Scotland Vol II
1830-1914, John Donald, Edin.
Golby, J (Ed), 1994, Communities and Families, (Vol 3), Open University
Gray, M, 1957,. The Highland Economy 1750-1850, Oliver & Boyd, Edinburgh
Hunter, J, 1976, The Making of the Crofting Community, John Donald, Edinburgh
Kyd, J.G., 1975, Scottish Population Statistics, Scottish Academic Press,
Edinburgh
Levitt, I, 1988,. Poverty and Welfare in Scotland 1890-1948, Edinburgh
Levitt, I. & Smout, T.C., 1979, The State of the Scottish Working
Class in 1843, Edinburgh
MacLachlan, G (Ed), 1987, Improving the Common Weal, Edinburgh
MacLeod, D. (1892), Gloomy Memories in the Highlands of Scotland, Glasgow,
MacLeod, J. (1917), Highland Heroes of the Land Reform Movement, Inverness
MacPherson, J.M, nd, . The Kirk’s Care of the Poor, Aberdeen
Nicholls, Sir G, 1967, [1856], A History of the Scotch Poor Law, Kelley,
New York
Pryce, W.T.R. (Ed), 1994, From Family History to Community History, (Vol
2), Open University
Richards, E, 1973, The Leviathan of Wealth, Routledge, London
Rowntree, B.S., 1902, Poverty. A study of Town Life, MacMillan
Smout, TC, 1986, A Century of the Scottish People, 1830-1950, Collins,
London